The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1887-02-10
Virginia Common Cases

Virginia Coupon Cases.
Reported for the Baltimore SUM-
Judge Bond. of the United States Circuit
Court. slttlng IN chambers at the courthouse in
Baltimore, Wednesday. heard the petition Of
Richard b, Fitzgerald, sample salesman for
Aus1ln, tlelds u Company, of philadelphia, and
G. b. Sherwood, of the Spenser Optical Manu-
featuring Company, of New York FITZGERALD
was brought before the court by the jailor of
Pulaski county, Virginia, ard Sherwood by the
city sergeant of Richmond, to whose custody
they had been committed, charged with selling
goods without license.
The petitions in these cases showed that the
petitioners had rendered Virginia coupons in
payment of their license taxes, which coupons
had been refused by the tax-collecing officers
of Virginia under the law of that State
That under the decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States the tender of Viz
lginia coupons to pay for license was equiva-
fent TO payment, and if such tender was re-
used the party is entitled to go ON with pusl-
ness as II he had obtained license according
to law.
Thai the coupons are receivable in payment
of all taxes according to the contract of the
state of Virginia. and that the refusal OF the
State to receive such coupons in payment of
taxes or for licenses is impairjng the obligation
OF her contract, and that all such action and
the imprisonment of the petitioners are con-
trary TO the constitution of the United States
and void.
The petitioners show that having thus ten
oefed coupons, as they had the right to do UNI
der the said decision, they have the right to go
on and sell goods as if they had licenses. But
the Supreme Court OF Virginia in the recent
case OF jones have in effect overruled the Sil-
preme Court OF the United States, and have de-
cided that although q tender of coupons is pay
ment Of the tax, still it must be q tender of
coupons verified under the law of Virginia,
which requires their genuneness to be ascer-
tanned by a. jury before they are to be received
as genuine. The petitioners claim that this
deeislon OF the Court Of Appeals Of virginia is
contrary to the constitution of the United
states as are the laws enacted by that State to
get rid OF her contract by which she had agreed
TO receive them In payment OF taxes.
insist
OF thelr liberty contrary to the constitution OF
the United States, and are entitled to be re-
leased by the federal authority.
TO the petition and the writ the Sheriff of
Pulaski county and the sergeant OF the city of
OF the prisoners, and set forth the commit
ments of the justices Of tire peace in which they
returns, and the cases were heard on the allie
cations of the petitions and returns, which, as
lar as the facts stated in them, were admitted
The petitioners were represented by VIM. Il.
Royal, of Richmond, counsel for the English
Virginia bondholders, and General bradley i.
J Johnson and Bradley S. johnson, OF his city
The State OF Virginia was represented by Il. a.
Ayres, encouragement of Virginia. Mr..
Aytes argued that the prisoners We're arrested
and held under law valid on its face, and the
consttutionality of the law could not be at
tackled In these proceedings, but only in suit
III the State courts.
Judge Bond delivered the following opinion,
which applies to both cases.
Elk parte II. Lee Fitzgerald, habeas corpus.
We are of opinio that the revenue laws under
which this party is held, which provide for the
raising OF revenue in Virginia, constitute one
law. though they have been enacted in separate
chapters and al different times. And We are of
opinion that the act OF the Legislature of Nir-
ginla, passed in lSS5-1SS6, chapter 415, which
cures paftles Who desire to sell by sample in
that State, and who tender coupons OF the
bonds of the State in payment of license to sell,
to deliver such coupons to the State officers for
verlfcation, and forbids them 10 exercise that
business till the same are verified, while par
ties who pay their license fees in money are
allowed to proceed at once in the conduct of
their business, is an unconstitutional act, be-
cause it impairs the obligation of the contract
made by Virginia with the coupuE-holder,
which was that the coupons would be received
in payment of all public dues and taxes. This
statute in effect, adds to the contract the words
CATER they are VERIFIED" which is a new con-
ditton altogether that greatly impairs the value
of the coupon.
legal tender for public dues and taxes as is a
greenback, and it is not necessary to show
what an impairment it would be to the value
of the latter did it's genuine character have to
be prov I'd every time it is offered in payment
of debt.
The petition in this case sets forth in detail
the laws under which the petitioner is detained
and the facts which caused his arrest and I'M
prisonment These allegations OF the petition
| are not traversed or denied, and must be taken
as true. Taking them to be true, 1t fully ap-
pears as we think, that the petitioner Is held
in violation of the constitution of the United
States, The case must be considered, the re-
spondent not denying the allegations of the
return, and that the return itself stated that
the party was held for the reasons and under
|
ton as in the return proper.
We have concluded to determine this
Immediately, without further consideration,
that it may go. if the Virginia authorities SO
deter NINE, to the Supreme Court at one, that
an early decision of that tribunal may prevent
further Illegal arrests of ike character if this
case shall be decided so to be. In exparte
Royal l07 .. S. 25l, the Supreme Court has the
power and may discharge the accused in adj
vance of his trial, it is not bound to do so in
every case. But in this case, if the party be
not discharged Immediately, the damage to
h inn hp ivpO aJ,o 10
lose his whole years business, and his rivals in
trade will supplant him in the good will of his
customers We think the party should be dis
charged, and an order will be made accord
ingly.
an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United.
states, giving an appeal bond for $500. The petit
TONERS were released on their own reeogniz-
| ance for $500. They will be notified if wanted,
which it was thought would not be before next
July, In the meantime. until decision of the
will stand as the law, and the tender of cous
ponS without evidence in verfication Of theiE
commences viii only be required Should
who have not procured their licenses in the
manner required by the law, which Judge Bond
decides to be unconstitutional, will De amenl-
Bile to prosecution for selling without license.
Mr.. Royal asked Judge Bond if he could not
add costs against the State of Virginia or other
parties. The Judge replied that he did not
think it would be exactly fair in this case to
but it viii be well for it to be known that in
future cases the defeated party will be muleted
in costs. AS to putting costs on the State of
Virginia, she is not a party GA the record in this
case. Let the supreme Court settle the costs.
Mr.. Royall.-"But. your honor, these men
have been brought to Bal,imore.',
Judge Bond.-"It is no punishment to any,
body to be brought to BALTIMORE laughter /
The application for an iniunstion against the
indemnity board of Virginia to set aside the
rule made by Judge Hughes requiring coupons
rendered for taxes to be filed in court, and the
Petersburg to compel the auditor of Virginia
to receive coupons taken for taxes by the treas
urer, We're set for hearing in Baltimore in Feb
ruary. The counsel for the bonaholders are
Gen. Bradley I. Johnsod and Bradley :. John
son, william l. Royal, and ex-Gov. Chamber
lain, of New York, and for tho State, Attorney
General A % laI. TIL